Jump to content

Talk:...Baby One More Time

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article...Baby One More Time has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 2, 2011Good article nomineeListed
October 6, 2019Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Title

[edit]

This article reads as if the writer was making a big show of pausing to think in the middle of sentences. Regardless of the album cover's typographic treatment, the title of the song is "Baby One More Time", without the punctuation. —Michael Z. 2005-08-11 21:58 Z


Um, no. It's not. It's supposed to be punctuated like that, as stupid as it sounds. Runa27 23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infamy

[edit]

The song and Britney's costume are described as "infamous", without explaining why they are infamous. Just because the video is sexy, or is there more to it? —Michael Z. 2005-08-11 22:03 Z

The two main objections (from moralists such as U.S. conservatives) would be the pre-adolescent extramarital sexuality along with the tarting up of the parochial school uniform. Both are seen as abuses, as conservatives often feel that girls and boys should avoid sex before marriage.
I can probably dig up a quote or two branding the video as "soft porn" or calling Spears a "pop tart". --Uncle Ed 17:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subliminal message

[edit]

I hear this song has a subliminal message that says "sleep with me, i'm not too young" when played backwards. someone should add that. 64.251.182.80 00:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about This? It seems pretty real, but i can't verify it. --ThrashedParanoid 02:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Download Audacity and then you can check yourself. Yes, it is true.

The section on the backmasking seems to have been removed without reason given, so I'm putting it back until someone can give reason for it being taken out. Prophaniti 11:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It's real, here's a link

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/britney.php (by who?)

Someone should cite a source for this in the article, at least, as its a bit of a controversial claim. Nanomed Dreams

Done; but rather than that link, I linked to a YouTube video, which is more verifiable.
Michael2 10:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
My edit was removed [1] on the basis that it was original research. I would like to know why this is considered original research—according to the No Original Research page, a video is a primary source, rather than an original piece of research (and I did not make the video). The policy page says "...make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims, unless such claims are verifiable either from the primary source itself". I believe the video verifies my claim. Would anyone agree or disagree?
Michael2 05:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Common sense is not original research and wikipedia does allow common sense. Whats next? Perhaps we should also cite that a light bulb emits light? Or the sky is blue, we need to cite that too. This citation business is getting out of control. Anyway, the back masking is real, you can youtube "Britney Subliminal" as well as google as many reputable sources have catched on to it. Also, if your unsure about how effective subliminal messaging is youtube "derren brown subliminal" and watch him influence people using subliminal messaging. Backmasking is deliberate in many cases and it is v. effective, if you have time log on to blackwell synergy and read the studies made on back masking and subliminal persuasion, the results are overwhelming. The school uniform and school based (which has nothing to do with the lyrics btw) video it self backs up the subliminal message. In other words, all the school girl fans of Britney listening to the track are subliminally encouraged to break their age limited moral for not having sex. Someone down the chain from Martin Max must have been a Babylonian purvert. Anyway, back to the backmasking part of the article... I tried to change the "hidden message" to "subliminal message" with subliminal in brackets to link to the subliminal article, as it is a more accurate description of the type of message the backmasking portrays. It is thought your sub conscious understands the reverse, but your conscious doesn't, which is why subliminal is used to describe subconscious messages, not hidden. Anyway, as I tried to change "hidden" to "subliminal" as well as to add the lines that need to be reversed for the message to be heard, (with you I lose my mind, give me a sign), some Smackbot (robot) reverted the changes. Perhaps one of you could change "hidden" to "subliminal" as well as to add the lyric part (with you I lose my mind, give me a sign) responsible for the backmasking.--78.86.159.199 (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its been my understanding that while rapidly flashed words or images, or hidden images are understood by the brain and have been used, reversed spoken words have not been proven to have anywhere near such a powerful effect, and that the primary effect that backmasking a message into any given audio track has is to get it labeled "subliminal", which generates controversy, rumors, basically a bunch of free press and publicity. Honestly, I think its a whole lot more believable that the people producing this audio track would pull such a stunt for the purpose of getting people to listen to it then talk about it, eventually perhaps triggering purchases somewhere down the road, rather than to suggest that people working in a profit-driven industry are behind any sort of plot to use subliminal brainwashing to create an army of horny and disinhibited schoolgirls, no matter how absolutely awesome that might be...149.169.207.30 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i personally have reversed this song in Sony sound forge, and i assure you it is real. Also, its hilarious. The Swedish guy who wrote this song must have done it on purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.218.238 (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol - also if we include the "subliminal messages" of Another One Bites The Dust or Stairway To Heaven then I think this one should be atleast mentioned :) Vitual aelita (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remakes

[edit]

What of the now infamous remakes. This song has been reworkled by the likes of Fountain of Wayne and others...and has been drastically remixed by various club DJ's

Are you sure that Marilyn manson has performed this song live? I am a loser who has no friends 11:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there should be a list of all the remakes/covers. 68.194.214.174 (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um...

[edit]

No idea what to make of this BBC article from 2001 that claims that the song was "ode, not to "slap and tickle", but to the pager". :S 86.132.137.252 01:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this article wondering what the song was about. In what sense does she want to be "Hit"? Can anyone say with any authority? In which case please put it in the article. I doubt if it is anything to do with pagers. Billlion 19:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is a partial answer [2]. I remember watching an interview with the teen queen herself on MTV during the controversy, and she explained that "hit me one more time" merely meant "give me your love again."'. Is there a better source for this quote? Billlion 19:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've wondered that as well. I note that I've only heard this at the skate rink, but my first instinct is and has always been that she's saying "Look, if it gets you back, I'll put up with the physical abuse and pretend I like it"--which is not, I think, what she's actually saying. But the more likely "poke me one more time" reading (that is, have sex with me) seems not to suit the song so much either. Dunno. (How the HECK did I get to a Britney Spears page?? Oh, right, DDR.) Kilyle 19:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite obvious what to say about the controversy of the song. It is an intentional double entendre upon two meanings of the line "hit me one more time." The claimed meaning is like the artist stated, that it just means "i want your (romantic) love back" and the subliminal meaning is that she is pleading for a former love interest to have sex once again. Helio462

I'd also like to point out that in American English slang, "hit me" is commonly used to ask for say, a "hit" of a drug, or a shot or glass of a (usually alchoholic) drink (the most common use I've seen is to say "hit me" while slapping your hand or money down on the bar, followed by receipt of either your usual drink or the bartender asking you what you want to order, depending on how predictable you are and how much the bartender knows you)... which is probably what the actual usage was supposed to be in the song. It always astonishes me actually, how often people try to read "physically abusive boyfriend" into the picture, when it's probably so simple as an unusual (but not implausible) permutation of extant slang meant to emphasize how much she wants a second shot (if you'll excuse the pun) at his affections. The fact that asking for a second serving or hit is sometimes done by saying "hit me again" would seem to lend credence to this, especially given the existence of lyrics like "my loneliness is killin' me" and "when I'm not with you I lose my mind", and the fact that it's portrayed in the video as a young (and I'd argue, therefore particularly addictive) love. Haha! Mild pseudo-drug reference, anyone? Runa27 23:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd like to point out that in American English slang, the linking of the term "hit" with its meaning in "I'd hit/tap that" is so thoroughly widespread, it caused McDonald's to pull an ad. I don't know what Britney thought she was singing about, but I certainly bet I know what her songwriter was writing about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.90.194 (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best song of 99?

[edit]

"Best" is subjective. It was a number 1 hit in most countries, was her most successful single, and is arguably her most famous song and video, which means it was popular and a subject of popular discussion, but whether it was the "best" (or "worst", or neither of those) is completely a matter of opinion. However, you do realize the song was released in late 1998, right? :P Which means it can't possibly be the "best song of 1999", much more than that Prince song that made a comeback that year could be. Runa27 23:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Who removed bubblegum and teen pop?

[edit]

Who removed the bubblegum and teen pop genres? The lyrics have a simple structure and vocals that is aimed at teenagers and pre-teens? Plus Britney has always been considered a teen pop star! I'm going to add them again! If you disagree please reply via my talk page.--Seán Travers (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Seán Travers[reply]

3 genres are excessive on a single. It is irrelevant what Spears is considered, all that matters is THIS song. Pick the genre that best matches this song. Best if you can back it up with critical evaluations, charting and awards. Teen pop is the best match. Bubblegum pop conflicts. Either way - choose. It is not helpful to go overboard on genres. --NrDg 21:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These derogatory genre names are obviously someone's personal opinion. The song was originally offered to R&B group TLC and can therefore not bee considered bubblegum or teen pop. Britney Spears herself might or might not be considered a teen pop artist, but this discussion is about the song itself. Just clean and simple pop is the most neutral genre name, and I have therefore changed the genre, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aikclaes (talk • contribs) 18:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it can not be labeled as bubblegum or teen pop just cause it was offered to a R&B group. The sound of a song is more what makes the genre. For instance, I've heard the Britney version of "Toxic" (pop), and a version by Mark Ronson (rap/hip-hop), and a version by Local H (alternative), and a version by A Static Lullaby (metal). It's still the same song, just different genres due to the sound of them. Granted, they are all the same song, but that does not change the fact that they are different genres — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rouse52794 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The track genre is sourced. It's not R&B just because it was offered to TLC. The lyrics were offered, not the entire song. Also, TLC records pop music too. - Sauloviegas (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Official Remixes

[edit]

I can't find any verification that either the "Lenny Bertoldo X-Mix" or the Sharp Platinum Vocal Mix (Edit)" were ever officially released anywhere by Jive. There was a "Sharp Platinum Vocal Radio Remix" released on Colombia promo #33250 seen here http://eil.com/shop/moreinfo.asp?catalogid=322197 but I don't know the running time for the track. A version titled "Sharp Platinum Vocal Radio Remix" that runs 3:27 is floating around the internet, but cannot be verified any more than the 6:50 "Sharp Platinum Vocal Mix (Edit)" can. As with the "Lenny Bertoldo X-Mix", these mixes seem simply to be floating around the internet for download, but have apparently never popped up on any official Jive product. I would also question whether the Wade J. Robson Remix or the Cabaret Mix qualify as "Official Remixes".Heidijo236 (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parody

[edit]

No mention of the "Make My Boobies One More Size" parody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 07:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sales levels questioned—improper sources cited in article for sales figures.

[edit]

[3] is given as a source for several countries' sales figures for this single, but the site is for Japanese sales only, and doesn't even seem to have a listing for Spears' single. (There are a couple album and a video statistic for Spears from that ref.) I request an interested party to respond here and please research these figures and give accurate refs. Abrazame (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand now—the Japanese site is given as a corroboration of what sales level the various award levels correspond to in the respective countries, while the actual award levels do have their own references, so no need to respond here.
There was an inflation of the U.S. sales number, however, from 1 million to 4.5 million. The RIAA site lists it as Platinum, and as that is the ref, that should be the figure noted. (Indeed, the article states the song is Platinum, not 4x Platinum.) As such, the song's number at List of best-selling singles worldwide will be reduced by 3.5 million, as that number has no ref and is based at least in part on this article. Abrazame (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Live

[edit]

I think there should be something on live preformences pof baby one more time like other songs. This could include things like how it's the only song to feature on all of her tours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.242.82 (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already included. :) Sauloviegas (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baby One More Time (1).jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Baby One More Time (1).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Production error

[edit]

Just thought I should mention that Denniz Pop wasn't involved as a producer on this track. See http://www.discogs.com/Britney-Spears--Baby-One-More-Time/release/899947 or, obviously, view a hard copy of the production notes on a cover sleeve. EDIT: Don't worry, I didn't realise I could edit the page without signing up. Fixed. 114.74.154.200 (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (December 2012)

[edit]

See talk:...Baby One More Time (album)

21:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move (May 2013)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn, didn't see previous on album was only Jan 2013 In ictu oculi (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...Baby One More Time → ...Baby One More Time (song) – Precision – "The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects" since almost impossible to guess reader search intentions against ...Baby One More Time (album) and ...Baby One More Time Tour on ...Baby One More Time (disambiguation). In ictu oculi (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 17 August 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– Two years passed since the song became the primary topic. However, the song (last month) has been still as popular as the album (last month). Per results at Talk:Like a Virgin (song) and Talk:Like a Virgin (album), Madonna albums and songs of similar names (i.e. Like a Virgin and Like a Prayer) are not primary topics, so we can use these as precedents to this discussion. The album has notable songs, like "Sometimes" and "From the Bottom of My Broken Heart", but I can't make the album primary again as it was before. The song's success could not outmatch the album's success, but I guess the song's must have contributed to the album's and sparked more singles from the album. But the album's shouldn't overcome the song's either. Even with two topics and WP:TWODABS guideline (in addition to ...Baby One More Time Tour), we should have made the disambiguation page long time ago. George Ho (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone might disagree with it due to the hatnote, but once the change happens again, a hatnote may be removed. George Ho (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on ...Baby One More Time (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

200 million views

[edit]

Not sure if this is relevant (it's definitely unsourced), but the music video now has 200 million views on VEVO. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Importance

[edit]

Please, can someone explain how this can be "top" importance to the "pop music" project, yet only "high" importance to the "Britney Spears" project? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 39 external links on ...Baby One More Time (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on ...Baby One More Time (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ...Baby One More Time (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Release date

[edit]

Britney Spears said in her booklet that comes with the CD for "The Singles Collection" that "...Baby One More Time" debuted on November 21, 1998. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-g6N-ZcD4HnM/Vbg81hKmJgI/AAAAAAAAVb8/Mv7hqWB8v88/s1600/Imagen%2B%25284%2529.jpg DatBoy101 (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ...Baby One More Time (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You guys sure about the Iceland peak?

[edit]

I'm asking because the chart is from November 1998. How do we know that this is the actual peak and not the song's position in that week? In the US, the song peaked at #1 in early 1999. Same goes for France, Norway, Sweden, and other countries. --Sek-2 (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week since I added this to the talk page. Since there's no objections, I'm removing Iceland from the chart table. --Sek-2 (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have only now just seen the message here after a few weeks but here is a link where you can browse through all the following weeks of the song's peak on the Iceland music chart published in newspapers every Friday issues of "Dagblaoio Visir" to check for yourself. Link---> http://timarit.is/view_page_init.jsp?issId=198715&pageId=2984695&lang=is&q=BRITNEY%20SPEARS
You can browse through the issues via the left hand side of the page with month, year, dates, news section and page number available for selection. To make it easier, I have browsed through all the following weeks the song charted on Iceland's official music charts in the 90s, Islenski Listinn Top 40, after its peak of 11 and will list it's chart position and date of issue from the papers and page number it can be found on.
December 4th, 1998 issue under Fokus news section category page 12: charts at #16
December 11th, 1998 issue under Fokus news section category page 12: charts at #39
December 18th, 1998 issue under Fokus news section category page 12: out of chart
No charts issued for December 25th, 1998 or January 1st, 1999
January 8th, 1999 issue under Fokus news section category page 10: out of chart
January 15th, 1999 issue under Fokus news section category page 8: out of chart
January 22nd, 1999 issue under Fokus news section category page 10: out of chart
January 29th, 1999 issue under Fokus news section category page 10: out of chart
February 5th, 1999 issue under Fokus news section category page 10: out of chart
February 12th, 1999 issue under Fokus news section category page 10: out of chart
February 19th, 1999 issue under Fokus news section category page 8: out of chart
February 26th, 1999 issue under Fokus news section category page 10: out of chart
March 5th, 1999 issue under Fokus news section category page 10: out of chart
March 12th, 1999 issue under Fokus news section category page 10: out of chart
March 19th, 1999 issue under Fokus news section category page 10: out of chart
March 26th, 1999 issue under Fokus news section category page 10: out of chart
Based on the next 4 months after Baby One More Time peaked at #11, it only charted for two more weeks at #16 and #39 before falling out of the charts and never re-entered it. So I think it is safe to say #11 was its highest chart peak in Iceland. I hope this settles once and for all this issue. (talk) 4:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Image Size

[edit]

The music video image seems unusually small when expanded, compared to the rest of the article pictures. SquashEngineer (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's the release date?

[edit]

Was the song released on September 15, 1998, or October 23, 1998? Various sources within the article contract each other. Status, I've noticed you changing release dates on a large number of articles, so would you care to comment? ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 12:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ResolutionsPerMinute: On the issue dated September 11, 1998, R&R magazine has the song listed as being sent to pop radio on September 15, page 37. However, on the issue dated September 25, 1998, it states that the song is going to pop radio on September 28, page 1. On the issue dated October 16, 1998, the magazine states that the single will be available "in stores" (aka as a CD single) on October 23, page 70. So based off this information, the correct date should actually be September 28, 1998. It seems as if it was originally planned for September 15, but was delayed. But nevertheless, September 28 would be the date it went to radio, while October 23 is the date it was released to buy in stores. — Status (talk · contribs) 22:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fun fact: When it became a GA in 2011, the date was listed as September 30, 1998, using the same source that is still listed in the background section using October 23, 1998 as the date. So not sure what that actual books says. — Status (talk · contribs) 22:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
sorry to bump this talk, but should the song's date be listed as september 28th or september 29th? on the front page, it says baby one more time was sent out to pop radio on september 28th, but on the going for adds section, it says september 29th, which is what someone updated the article to say a while back SpinelFan64 (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RIAA says Sept 29[4] which is the same date stated by Radio & Records magazine on page 39. I don't see any sources supporting the previous day. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RIAA says October 29th, and Radio & Records literally says "Impacting Top 40 and Rhythmic Crossover September 28th" on the front page SpinelFan64 (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The front page conflicts with page 37 which lists all the songs being added on September 29. So that source is a wash. Binksternet (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Status: That's exactly what I was thinking. A few months ago there was a series of arguments at Template:Infobox song about which release date should be included in infoboxes, and I eventually became so overwhelmed with IPs and reversions that I just decided to ignore the rules and put in the earliest date I could find, moving all others to a Release History section. October 23 wasn't in this article's table (or at least not when I saw it earlier—thanks for adding it!), so I decided to take it here. You may want to keep an eye on Britney articles, because a redlink user is changing the dates to the commercial releases. I'm not ready to get inolved with that again. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 22:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I have been doing recently myself because I discovered the R&R archive. Back in the day, songs were sent to radio months before physical releases and finding sources for that information can be difficult, but that magazine has been a Godsent! I know some people have argued that it should be based off the physical release date, but once a song has been sent to radio in the US anyway, that's when it is able to start charting. Like for example, I found that I'm Real (Jennifer Lopez song) was actually sent to radio in June of that year and if you look at the chart performance, it started charting soon after that. But it wasn't released physically until September. Obviously the June date is when it was being pushed as a single and started charting, so that's what should be used as the date. — Status (talk · contribs) 22:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Status: Exactly! I have a habit of checking Billboard for release dates whilst leaving R&R in the dark for some unexplainable reason. Probably because it takes next to forever to search for something what with all the information it publishes. I need to accept the fact that it's a gold mine. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 22:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 August 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Baby One More Time (song) → ...Baby One More Time – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per pageviews. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 24 September 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. per discussion below. Best, (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans 13:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– These are test cases. My interpretation of MOS:ELLIPSIS is that these page titles should have a space following the ellipsis, and all occurrences of (for example) "...Baby One More Time" should be replaced with "... Baby One More Time". I'm not sure any stylisation differences are sufficient to override our Manual of Style. There are many articles that have a title with an ellipsis followed by a space, for instance ... All the Way, Boys!. A complete list is at All pages with titles beginning with .... There is therefore inconsistency in article titles with a leading ellipsis that ought to be resolved. If these test cases are moved, then all titles without a space after the ellipsis should also be moved. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:...Baby_One_More_Time&oldid=1248787636"